Climate Change Banter

[tamarack]

Climate sensitivity (warming per doubling of Co2 concentration) is probably the best way to break down peoples opinions into categories. Since you've all used loaded language in you labels, I'll continue with the tradition:

 

1. Extreme alarmist: believes or focuses solely on the high end or even higher than the scientifically accepted climate sensitivity (>4C). Focuses solely on the worst case consequences and denies or ignores all benefits.

 

2. Alarmist: believes or focuses on the high end of scientifically accepted climate sensitivity (3-4.5C). Focuses usually on the worst case consequences and acknowledges few of the benefits. 

 

3. Scientifically grounded: acknowledges the full range of scientifically accepted climate sensitivity (1.5-4.5C). May lean slightly one direction or another within that range based on a good-faith effort to objectively interpret the evidence with assistance of peer-reviewed literature, but acknowledges all of the uncertainty and the lack of concrete evidence. Has a balanced understanding and acceptance of the various consequences and benefits and the evidence that on net the consequences will be negative. A moderate to high level of mitigation is warranted, and adaptation cannot be relied upon solely.

 

4. The biased/arrogant/confused/misled lukewarmer category: believes or focuses solely on the low end or slightly below scientifically accepted climate sensitivity (1-2C). Ignores the evidence that climate sensitivity is probably higher than 2C. Often an undue focus on the benefits of AGW, or downplaying of the consequences. Possibly believes that the benefits of AGW will outweigh the consequences.

 

5. Denier/stupid: believes in a climate sensitivity below the scientifically accepted range (0-1.5C). Usually focuses on the benefits of warming and downplays the consequences. Probably believes that the benefits of warming will outweigh the consequences.

 

6. Extreme denier/stupid: believes CO2 has little to no warming effect. If warming did occur, it would be good.

 

Much prefer taco's rating.  To me, words like alarmist, skeptic, denier (in AGW context) are part of the vernacular and relate mainly to opinions being held.  Words like arrogant, confused, misled, stupid seem far more heavily loaded and pejorative.  Also, I think there's an unintentional oversight in that the above ratings apply those extra-loaded words only to #4 and below, and that skier would agree that the extreme alarmist camp includes folks to whom some/all of those words might apply.

[ORH_wxman]

Much prefer taco's rating.  To me, words like alarmist, skeptic, denier (in AGW context) are part of the vernacular and relate mainly to opinions being held.  Words like arrogant, confused, misled, stupid seem far more heavily loaded and pejorative.  Also, I think there's an unintentional oversight in that the above ratings apply those extra-loaded words only to #4 and below, and that skier would agree that the extreme alarmist camp includes folks to whom some/all of those words might apply.

 

 

That's because skier has shown a higher intolerance for the #4/#5/#6 ratings versus #1/#2...personal preference. We all have them.

 

But I agree, it makes the list more subjective rather than simply stating what each group focuses on....not painting a broadbrush of some anecdotel attitude perception on the entire group would come across more objective.

[CoastalWx]

To be fair, your placement of "stupid" could be argued for #1....if you wanted to be unbiased.

[Snow_Miser]

I keep seeing this brought up as some sort of talking point, but who has stated that we "know all"? Seriously.

 

You can find dozens of examples of scientists and non-scientists claiming the science is settled and that the debate is over. It's a ridiculous attempt at suppressing the skeptical view.

[LocoAko]

You can find dozens of examples of scientists and non-scientists claiming the science is settled and that the debate is over. It's a ridiculous attempt at suppressing the skeptical view.

The debate over whether global warming is occurring - yes.

I haven't seen any scientists claim we know everything about everything. Come on now.

[tacoman25]

Much prefer taco's rating.  To me, words like alarmist, skeptic, denier (in AGW context) are part of the vernacular and relate mainly to opinions being held.  Words like arrogant, confused, misled, stupid seem far more heavily loaded and pejorative.  Also, I think there's an unintentional oversight in that the above ratings apply those extra-loaded words only to #4 and below, and that skier would agree that the extreme alarmist camp includes folks to whom some/all of those words might apply.

 

Bingo.

[Snow_Miser]

The debate over whether global warming is occurring - yes.

I haven't seen any scientists claim we know everything about everything. Come on now.

 

Making statements like the "science is settled" implies that we know everything about an issue. That's obviously not true, as you yourself have stated.

 

Yes, Global Warming has occurred, but what extent of it is anthropogenic? How much will we warm in the future? How much has this warming impacted weather? These are all viable questions.

[Snow_Miser]

To be fair, your placement of "stupid" could be argued for #1....if you wanted to be unbiased.

 

There's stupid for #6 and #1. I've discussed with people that believed the anthropogenic forcing was a hoax or that CO2 actually cooled the atmosphere. Or that Global Warming was an evil plot to get more regulation. There's also people who want to attribute everything to Global Warming, who look equally ridiculous.

[ORH_wxman]

 

Making statements like the "science is settled" implies that we know everything about an issue. That's obviously not true, as you yourself have stated.

 

Yes, Global Warming has occurred, but what extent of it is anthropogenic? How much will we warm in the future? How much has this warming impacted weather? These are all viable questions.

 

It depends on the context..."the science is settled" is a fairly valid response to someone who thinks we haven't warmed at all in the past 150 years. The science is indeed settled on that...we have warmed. Its usually not worth going any further into conversation with someone who believes that.

On the flip side, "the science is settled" used as a general description of climate change is obviously deceptive and a frequent false talking point of extreme alarmists to divert attention away from the numerous uncertain aspects of climate change.

[Jonger]

 Making statements like the "science is settled" implies that we know everything about an issue. That's obviously not true, as you yourself have stated. Yes, Global Warming has occurred, but what extent of it is anthropogenic? How much will we warm in the future? How much has this warming impacted weather? These are all viable questions. It depends on the context..."the science is settled" is a fairly valid response to someone who thinks we haven't warmed at all in the past 150 years. The science is indeed settled on that...we have warmed. Its usually not worth going any further into conversation with someone who believes that.On the flip side, "the science is settled" used as a general description of climate change is obviously deceptive and a frequent false talking point of extreme alarmists to divert attention away from the numerous uncertain aspects of climate change.

When observations come in UNDER lowest scenarios, the science isn't settled. Its not totally that simple, but its a good base line for being skeptical of other models

When sea temps flat-line or decline when a higher resolution and accurate measurement network are put in place, skeptical criticism isn't all that unfounded.

[The_Global_Warmer]

We are in a cool period now.  We just haven't seen any cooling.  We are about to see warming at least in the temperature record start climbing past previous records With the PDO and solar in the tank.  It was only a matter of time before the Earths heat intake imbalance would grow faster.  GHG forcing growth is still growing fast. 

 

How much and how fast is impossible to determine right now. 

 

 

 

 

[tacoman25]

We are in a cool period now.  We just haven't seen any cooling.  We are about to see warming at least in the temperature record start climbing past previous records With the PDO and solar in the tank.  It was only a matter of time before the Earths heat intake imbalance would grow faster.  GHG forcing growth is still growing fast. 

 

How much and how fast is impossible to determine right now. 

 

 

 

For RSS, UAH, and HadCRU, 1998 is still the warmest year on record. And 2013 certainly won't surpass it.

[nflwxman]

For RSS, UAH, and HadCRU, 1998 is still the warmest year on record. And 2013 certainly won't surpass it.

 

Fixed.  2010 is now the warmest year in HadCRUT4- unless something changed recently.

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/first-look-at-hadcrut4.html

[nflwxman]

V4 has 2010 ahead by a little above 1998.

 

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/

I know HadCRUT4 filled in a lot of the missing northern hemisphere data points not in V3, but it looks as if it is still missing much of the arctic and antarctic.

[LakeEffectKing]

 

To be fair, your placement of "stupid" could be argued for #1....if you wanted to be unbiased.

Skier is a pseudo-skeptic wanna-be! (Hey, a new category!!)

[tacoman25]

Fixed.  2010 is now the warmest year in HadCRUT4- unless something changed recently.

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/first-look-at-hadcrut4.html

 

Ah, ok that's something that has changed then. But I believe it's only barely warmer than 1998, and not as warm as the GISS anomaly. And 2013 certainly will not be that warm, so it doesn't change my point to Friv - where is he coming up with the statement that we're "about to see warming past previous records"?

[nflwxman]

Ah, ok that's something that has changed then. But I believe it's only barely warmer than 1998, and not as warm as the GISS anomaly. And 2013 certainly will not be that warm, so it doesn't change my point to Friv - where is he coming up with the statement that we're "about to see warming past previous records"?

Yeah, it is barely warmer.

 

I would be surprised if will see record high monthly temperatures unless ENSO at the very least goes positive for a sustained period of time (6+ months).  Right now, the latest ONI index is at -0,4 and has been at border line nina all year (it is seemingly warming fairly quickly this month though).  I have no faith for a full fledged El Nino until after the winter though.

 

Sea surface temperatures did record the highest level in august 2013, however.

[Jonger]

That 0-700M temp chart by friv looks like it was tweaked from the one I saw a few days ago.

Imagine being on our side of the discussion for a moment.... Data comes in favorable, its then tweaked to remove the cooling or downward trend.

Never fails.

[nflwxman]

That 0-700M temp chart by friv looks like it was tweaked from the one I saw a few days ago. Imagine being on our side of the discussion for a moment.... Data comes in favorable, its then tweaked to remove the cooling or downward trend. Never fails.

Looks correct to me?

[The_Global_Warmer]

Because the upper oceans are carrying more heat than anytime before on our records.  This year has seen a a jump higher. 
 

It doesn't have to be 2013.  I didn't say a word about 2013.  You did. 

[Jonger]

Looks correct to me?

 

That's most likely "adjusted". 

[The_Global_Warmer]

That 0-700M temp chart by friv looks like it was tweaked from the one I saw a few days ago. Imagine being on our side of the discussion for a moment.... Data comes in favorable, its then tweaked to remove the cooling or downward trend. Never fails.

 

The graphic hasn't been tweaked.  So??

 

 also do not recall you saying anything about GISS this year being revised down?  Or UAH being revised down last year?  How about CPC revising Central Pacific SSTS downwards last year.  Or CPC revising OHC downwards this year?

 

 

You make a good post in reply to ORH then pull some strawman based on a graphic you claim was changed but you can't provide being "tweaked".

[Jonger]

The graphic hasn't been tweaked.  So??

 

 also do not recall you saying anything about GISS this year being revised down?  Or UAH being revised down last year?  How about CPC revising Central Pacific SSTS downwards last year.  Or CPC revising OHC downwards this year?

 

 

You make a good post in reply to ORH then pull some strawman based on a graphic you claim was changed but you can't provide being "tweaked".

 

Not tweaked by you... Its not raw data, I'm sure. Raw data is almost 99% of the time cooler than adjusted.

[tacoman25]

Because the upper oceans are carrying more heat than anytime before on our records.  This year has seen a a jump higher. 

 

It doesn't have to be 2013.  I didn't say a word about 2013.  You did. 

 

You said we are "about to" see record warming. Just because one month has had record upper ocean heat content according to that source does not prove that. If not this year, then are you saying 2014 will be a record warm year? Or are you just talking about GISS temps for a month or two?

[The_Global_Warmer]

One month?  It's not one month.  It's 6 months.  And it's not just 2013.  2012 had the record and 2011 before that for the year. 

 

The first 3 months of this spiked to 14.1 and the most recent 3 months is at 12.5.  That is way above the previous record year of 2012.   Soon in terms of a year means 2014 or 2015 to me.  but I expect Sept-Dec on GISS to be record setting. 

 2000   5.856500     2001   4.117000     2002   6.788750     2003   9.951750     2004   10.24050     2005   8.411750     2006   10.43025     2007   9.478500     2008   10.05225     2009   10.12600     2010   10.36725     2011   10.86900     2012   10.94075

[tacoman25]

 

One month?  It's not one month.  It's 6 months.  And it's not just 2013.  2012 had the record and 2011 before that for the year. 

 

The first 3 months of this spiked to 14.1 and the most recent 3 months is at 12.5.  That is way above the previous record year of 2012.   Soon in terms of a year means 2014 or 2015 to me.  but I expect Sept-Dec on GISS to be record setting. 

 2000   5.856500     2001   4.117000     2002   6.788750     2003   9.951750     2004   10.24050     2005   8.411750     2006   10.43025     2007   9.478500     2008   10.05225     2009   10.12600     2010   10.36725     2011   10.86900     2012   10.94075

 

Not for global temperatures, which is what you implied you were referring to.

[Snow_Miser]

 

One month?  It's not one month.  It's 6 months.  And it's not just 2013.  2012 had the record and 2011 before that for the year. 

 

The first 3 months of this spiked to 14.1 and the most recent 3 months is at 12.5.  That is way above the previous record year of 2012.   Soon in terms of a year means 2014 or 2015 to me.  but I expect Sept-Dec on GISS to be record setting. 

 2000   5.856500     2001   4.117000     2002   6.788750     2003   9.951750     2004   10.24050     2005   8.411750     2006   10.43025     2007   9.478500     2008   10.05225     2009   10.12600     2010   10.36725     2011   10.86900     2012   10.94075

 

Pretty sure the differences between a lot of those years are not even close to being statistically significant.

 

 

The yellow line isn't a linear trend, but it's a reference point.

[Jonger]

 

One month?  It's not one month.  It's 6 months.  And it's not just 2013.  2012 had the record and 2011 before that for the year. 

 

The first 3 months of this spiked to 14.1 and the most recent 3 months is at 12.5.  That is way above the previous record year of 2012.   Soon in terms of a year means 2014 or 2015 to me.  but I expect Sept-Dec on GISS to be record setting. 

2000 5.856500

2001 4.117000

2002 6.788750

2003 9.951750

2004 10.24050

2005 8.411750

2006 10.43025

2007 9.478500

2008 10.05225

2009 10.12600

2010 10.36725

2011 10.86900

2012 10.94075

 

Pretty sure the differences between a lot of those years are not even close to being statistically significant.

 

 

The yellow line isn't a linear trend, but it's a reference point.

That yellow line looks like Argo.... Big change in OHC trend during the ARGO era.

[Snow_Miser]

You can see some pretty unscientific comments on both sides in this video.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y34R7hSpEb0

[skierinvermont]

That yellow line looks like Argo.... Big change in OHC trend during the ARGO era.

Indeed it is, which is why you can see the smaller confidence intervals during that period than pre-2003. However, you can see that there is more than enough confidence to be certain OHC was rapidly rising during the 80s and 90s.